Fuentes

Fuentes v. TMCSF, Inc.

Good Law
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256·26 Cal. App. 5th 541
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 23, 2018E066242California3,703 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ramirez, J.

Plaintiff Alfredo Fuentes entered into a written agreement with defendant TMCSF, Inc., doing business as Riverside Harley-Davidson (Riverside), to buy a motorcycle. At the same time, he entered into a written agreement with Eaglemark Savings Bank (Eaglemark) to finance the purchase. The latter agreement included an arbitration clause; the former agreement did not.

Fuentes then filed this action against Riverside, alleging that Riverside made various misrepresentations and violated various statutes in connection with the sale of the motorcycle. Riverside petitioned to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the petition.

We will hold that Riverside was not entitled to compel arbitration because it was not a party to the arbitration clause, it was not acting in the capacity of an agent of a party to the arbitration clause, and it was not a third party beneficiary of the arbitration clause. Moreover, Fuentes was not equitably estopped to deny Riverside's claimed right to compel arbitration. Hence, we will affirm.

I

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the evidence submitted in connection with Riverside's petition to compel arbitration.

On April 19, 2015,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.